MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118307796 · doi:10.1086/525285

Pathogenic Diversity among<i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i>Ocular Strains in Nonhuman Primates Is Affected by Subtle Genomic Variations

2008· article· en· W2118307796 on OpenAlexaff
Laszlo Kari, William M. Whitmire, John H. Carlson, Deborah D. Crane, Nathalie Reveneau, David E. Nelson, David Mabey, Robin L. Bailey, Martin J. Holland, Grant McClarty, Harlan D. Caldwell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTrachomaChlamydia trachomatisVirulenceBiologyChlamydiaPathogenEtiologyGenomeSerotypeMicrobiologyVirologyGeneticsImmunologyGeneMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chlamydia trachomatis is the etiological agent of trachoma, the leading cause of preventable blindness. Trachoma presents distinct clinical syndromes ranging from mild and self-limiting to severe inflammatory disease. The underlying host and pathogen factors responsible for these diverse clinical outcomes are unclear. To assess the role played by pathogen variation in disease outcome, we analyzed the genomes of 4 trachoma strains representative of the 3 major trachoma serotypes, using microarray-based comparative genome sequencing. Outside of ompA, trachoma strains differed primarily in a very small subset of genes (n = 22). These subtle genetic variations were manifested in profound differences in virulence as measured by in vitro growth rate, burst size, plaque morphology, and interferon-gamma sensitivity but most importantly in virulence as shown by ocular infection of nonhuman primates. Our findings are the first to identify genes that correlate with differences in pathogenicity among trachoma strains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations111
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207